aa5874

But, there is something wrong here. I cannot find where Pliny explicitly states the two women were slaves.

DCHindley

How hard are you looking?

Pliny, Letters 10.96:

Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis [slave girl], quae ministrae (female servant) dicebantur, quid esset veri, et per tormenta quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/pliny.ep10.html

"Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/pliny.html

There used to be a full set of translated books available online, but the link is now dead. Project Gutenburg has text files of the English translation you can download, but the letter numbers seem off by one (there it is letter XCVII, which would be 97, not 96 as it should be)

DCH

DCHindley

To me, that reads like "the Pliny letters do not corroborate the Gospel story or the history of the christian church as stated by the church writers." Careful editing would have added a strategic comma between "story" and "or" so it read "the Pliny letters do not corroborate the Gospel story, or the history of the christian church as stated by the church writers." It completely changes the meaning. Little picayune details like that are important to me, and I suppose others who dwell in this forum.

Other historians. (Duh) We compare and contrast.

Jeffrey is correct that the NT Gospels stop short of calling Jesus/Christ a God after the Roman or Greek fashion. Still, I feel that they all portray him as something more than a regular man. They differ as to the degree they present his uniqueness. The Gospel of Mark presents him at least as symbolic of the grace of the God of the Jews extended to all peoples through the man's sacrifice, whereas in John Jesus is almost equated with the transcendent God (arguably not even the God of the Jews, but quite different than how a Roman or Greek would perceive a "god").

Yes, as far as you correctly observed that there is a difference between the Christ of the time of Nero and the Christ of Pliny's Christians. The Christians of Pontus/Bithynia had a "high" Christology. The "Christians" mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius from the time of Nero and Vespasian were rebellious Jews whose "christ" was a national leader. These two "christianities" are like oil and water, apples and oranges, night and day, etc.

DCH

aa5874

But, are you sure that I wanted a comma there in the first place?

As you may imagine, I am not obligated to maintain any position or any view all the time. I can change my position or view at any time without any notification.


Jesus Christ is called a God in the Gospels. See John1. The Word was God.

See John 1. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

DCHindley

Only if you meant to say what you didn't actually say.

Well, imagine that ... imagination at work, even here?!

Well, more precisely, it is "en arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o logos" (literally, word for word without attempting to make it more comprehensible in English, "in beginning was the logos/word/reason, and the logos was towards the god, and a god/divine/god-like was the the logos").

Without a definite article, that last qeos (theos) would usually indicate a god-like quality rather than a specific god, although it could mean what you say, and most bible translations render it so. How's it feel to be arguing a Christian position for a change? Personally, I'm a little concerned for you. <g>

That is "kai o logos sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin," or "and the logos flesh became and dwelt ["tented"] in us."

I think all this really asserts is that a certain divine-like "word/reason," which was "towards" the (i.e., supreme) god, took fleshly form in order to dwell with us.

There is a similar personification of a quality (wisdom rather than reason) in 1 Enoch 42:1-3, although there is debate whether Enoch influenced John 1 or vice versa, although they could also be independent of one another:

Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens 2 Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, And found no dwelling-place: Wisdom returned to her place, And took her seat among the angels. 3 And unrighteousness went forth from her chambers: Whom she sought not she found, And dwelt with them, As rain in a desert And dew on a thirsty land.

Golly, I would think you of all people would be a little more existential, and note that en hmin is in the dative, which can mean "in/to/by", and then assert that the logos dwelt "by means of us". WE created him. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Aa, must I do all your homework for you? <g>

DCH

aa5874

[QUOTE=DCHindley;5756198]Only if you meant to say what you didn't actually say.
[quote]

You just make your own position clear, and do not try to read other people's mind.


Are you claiming you have none?

I do not accept your translations of John1. I use the KJV translations as found in English.

And further in a discussion, I am more obliged to use neutral sources.

And I do my own homework.

rlogan

The only one you have bothered to think about in terms of evidence is history to myth.

For example, which one better explains the forged Testimonium Flavianum? why did they feel the need to do that?

Which better explains Pliny/Trajan exchange?

etc.

My bet is that you don't even know these issues. I mean this sincerely because I am no scholar on this material myself.


But rather, your own hypothesis is not even weighed against much evicence at all, let alone be compared side-by-side through the myriad of evidenciary material we have.

Although you feel that there is some kind of "hypothesis testing" going on, there isn't actually any at all.

DCHindley

That is what I originally did, using your own grammar as written. It was you who responded with a different take, and later defended your right to change your mind in mid discussion, without admitting so, etc. You are too much of a moving target to be fun to argue with. Pity.

Only if you think so.

It is not mine, just borrowed from an interlinear NT. Only fundies use the KJV anymore. BTW, since when does the KJV have this book of "Galations" you always cite? Don Lemmon's kingjamesversionofthebible.com?
http://www.kingjamesversionofthebibl...galatians.html

1 Enoch? Or is R H Charles too fancy for you? Since you prefer the KJV over later translations, perhaps I should revert to the older Lawrence translation. You really can't discuss this subject without reference to intertestamental literature. These are free on the Internet (don't actually buy Old Testament Pseudepigrapha or you'll have to mortgage the house).

Or are you referring to my brand of interlinear? It's Westcott & Hort. I don't like the NIV interlinear, and I don't have one based on the Majority Text, like the one by Jay Green. I like all the definite articles (the "the's") to be there in the interlinear English text and the un English-like word orders so that I am reminded just how un English-like Greek actually is. So I use a really cheap ($4) one by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Kingdom Interlinear, which is actually not bad at all in the interlinear section) and ignore their peculiar New World Translation ET in the right hand margin.

Personally, I prefer Hennessy VSOP cognac, but drink the cheaper Christian Brothers VS brandy (although I put it in the even cheaper Paul Masson Grande Amber bottle because it has a cork rather than a screw top). Beer, like the KJV, just gives me a headache. Please allow me to be a snob, or at least feel like one.

As well you should. Only use better tools.

DCH

aa5874

Who likes a moving target? Now, you see me now you don't.


Which part gives you a headache? The part that was in some kind of Hebrew or the part that was in some kind of Greek.

I leave the translators with the headache and the beer.


It was for that very reason why I rejected your translations of John 1.

Analyst

Perhaps it's in the Dr Who edition?